Next ad banned for 'unhealthily thin' model

[Bamboozled5]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/12/next-ad-banned-over-unhealthily-thin-model-in-digitally-altered-leggings?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Unfortunately I can't paste the photo so hope you can read it!

Is this model really so very thin that this ad should be banned? While she evidently has no excess fat, I'm not sure she is 'unhealthily' thin. I think we have normalised being overweight and obese which are at least as unhealthy.

I'm the same height as this model with BMI 22 and have much more padding. So I would say her BMI is probably below 20 which is technically underweight. I just found this ban interesting as to me she doesn't look extremely thin.

She looks unhealthily thin to me! Her legs are very very slim.

I think it’s the fact that Next have admitted to enhancing the photo. Most women who have a healthy BMI and are well toned tend to have some calf definition. Her thighs have definition but they have altered her lower legs to enhance the product.

Come on. If it was high fashion that photo would (sadly) be acceptable. But who is looking at those jeans and saying ‘yes, that it a look that the average woman has or is capable of attaining with a healthy outlook’. This isn’t about skinny or fat shaming, that photo is absolutely something some young girl would look at and question her own very normal body in an unhealthy way. The models body may or may not be healthy for her, who knows what photoshop or angles have been used. But the look it portrays doesn’t look healthy.

A bmi under 18.5 is underweight. Mine is 19 and I am not underweight at all

I think the fact that it has been digitally "enhanced" is significant.

I don't understand why some people jump to extremes. Why do we only have stick thin or obese? Are they the only two sizes humans come in?

The model looks very thin because of her legs. I didn't see any problem until I saw the whole photo.

I think it's disengenuous to flounder around wondering why people have a problem with the fashion industry and the size of some models.

I think it’s reasonable to ban that particular photo. Her legs do look strangely long and thin in that particular photo.

Here's the photo...
It looks a bit odd!

I've added the photo for you op. It's her leg that looks too thin ! I wouldn't really say the rest of her stands out but the leg is extremely thin

Whilst I am surprised at Next and this picture, I have seen much worse on Zara website. Their models really are too thin. Shoulder blades protruding etc .

The ASA did not simply ban it because she looked too thin. They looked at other photographs of the same model and noted that in those she appeared to be of a healthy weight, whereas in this photo she appeared to be unhealthily thin because of the way that the photo was posed and photographed. So it was a decision taken in context, which I think is very appropriate.

I can't understand why Next would alter photos to look this extreme really - sure the model already had lovely slim legs - and it's not like many women are going to look and think 'oh, they'll fit me well, I'll order them' ... 😆

Ah, I didn't realise that. I agree her legs look disproportionate and I will have a look to find an undoctored photo of her.

I have a very similar build to this model and am slightly taller. I also have disproportionately long legs compared to my torso. This is my natural build and has always been the same. My BMI comes in at 18 but BMI is an average and is distorted by bone structure, being tall, having a naturally slim build.

I think it's really awful people saying this model looks unhealthy. It is thin shaming and articles about banning pictures declaring this woman's body unacceptable could do just as much damage to people's body image/ causing eating disorders as the purported reasons for removing it, so it is immensely hypocritical.

Without even reading the article it's clear as day that her legs are not real, but digitally altered. Especially the left leg looks ridiculous, a straight/bent line, no definition to any part whatsoever.

Other than her (faked) legs, she's lovely and not too thin at all.

I'm taller than her, and my BMI is a bit under 18.5, I do have long slim legs, but they look nothing like that, I still have discernible thighs and calves.

They are not her real legs, though. They’ve been significantly altered.

The article says Next digitally altered the length of her legs (It actually says leggings, but presumably that means her legs look longer too). So, healthy or not the picture isn't an accurate representation of that particular model. The low camera angle also skews the perspective.

As someone who had an eating disorder in her teens (heroin chic model era) and a teenaged daughter now, I am really pleased this sort of thing is monitored. I agree that the model herself might not be unhealthy but it is an odd photo which could be seen to be celebrating a very unrealistic shape. My daughter is proud of her curves and I think the body positivity movement has helped enormously with normalising normal women in adverts and other forms of media.

I think banning photos on the grounds they have been digitally altered in an irresponsible manner is a good thing and it's about time.

The article says they digitally altered the appearance of the leggings to make the garment look longer (perhaps even longer length came up short on her due to having long legs: I have this problem) but that they have not altered her actual body shape.

And frankly, certain types of garment suit people with different body shapes. I can't imagine someone large would want to wear this style of jeans so it makes sense for them to be modelled by someone with a similar build to the women who would be the target customer. For other styles of jeans, I presume they use a variety of different models.

I'm very sick of this. Nobody criticises the unhealthily large models often shown now modelling various ranges of clothes.

I'm very sick of this. Nobody criticises the unhealthily large models often shown now modelling various ranges of clothes.

You think no one criticises, really? Do you even use social media?

This. It's disgusting actually. As women we've always grown up with altered and airbrushed images feeding our insecurities and making us feel less than, but this is a step too far when they are totally changing body parts.
Irresponsible to women and also misselling.

The ASA's reasoning was "“Because the pose, camera angle and styling in the ad investigated strongly emphasised the slimness of the model’s legs, we considered that the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin".

So basically she is deemed unhealthily thin because they don't like how her body looks from a certain angle and because she happens to have long legs.

"In its investigation, the ASA said the model’s face did not appear to be “gaunt” and that while her arms were slim they did not “display any protruding bones”.
The ASA said the shot had been set up at a low angle that “accentuated the models already tall physique [and] further emphasised the slimness of the model’s legs”.

They admit she is NOT unhealthily thin, she is simply tall with a slim build. But apparently "accentuating" her slimness and tallness makes her body unacceptable.

I think that is disgraceful body shaming.

Are you of Asian heritage though or very small framed? My BMI is about 18.8 and I look pretty unhealthy, and have been told to gain back around 1 stone. I do have a very solid bone structure though, but have been told by multiple health professionals now that 18.5 is generally the guideline for some countries, whereas most Caucasian people with a broader build would be more optimal at 20.

You think no one criticises, really? Do you even use social media?

Not really, no. Perhaps others shouldn't either if people post such unpleasant comments?